-LRB- CNN -RRB- -- `` We are now locked in a rolling filibuster on every issue , which is totally gridlocking the U.S. Senate . That is wrong . It is wrong for America . ''

Who said that ? Democrat Harry Reid , majority leader of the Senate ? Guess again . Try former Republican leader Trent Lott , bemoaning the troubled state of the Senate in the late 1990s .

No recent majority leader of either party has been saved the headache of trying to lead a Senate in which minorities can exploit the rules and stymie the chamber . This is not a new problem . Harry Reid may face a particularly unrestrained minority . But generations of Senate leaders from Henry Clay to Bill Frist have felt compelled to seek changes in Senate rules to make the chamber a more governable place .

Some things never change .

Twice this week , the Senate has opened debate with its party leaders engaged in a caustic battle over Reid 's plans to seek changes to Senate rules in January .

Reid argues that Republicans have engaged in unprecedented levels of filibustering . GOP leader Mitch McConnell blames what he calls Reid 's weak leadership , arguing that Republicans ' parliamentary tactics are a natural response to Reid 's partisan ways .

There is no innocent party in the parliamentary arms race that engulfs the Senate . Still , many argue that Republicans go overboard in their willingness to exploit Senate rules . Indeed , since 2007 , Senate records show that Republicans have filibustered or threatened to filibuster more than 360 times , a historic record .

Reform of the Senate is overdue . In 1997 , with Republicans controlling the Senate , author Steven Smith and I advocated reforms that sought to trim the filibuster while preserving minority rights . Today , with Democrats in control , I again think changes in Senate rules are due :

Senate should limit the number of motions subject to a filibuster

A top priority should be to eliminate filibusters of the `` motion to proceed '' to a bill and the three motions that are required to send a bill to conference with the House .

When the majority seeks to call up a bill on the floor for consideration , the leader offers a motion to proceed . Because Senate rules deem this motion `` debatable , '' it takes 60 votes to cut off debate and come to a vote on the motion .

Banning the filibuster on this motion would still allow a minority to filibuster the underlying bill and amendments to it . But it would give a majority the right to set the chamber 's legislative agenda . The change might also rein in senators ' secret `` holds '' because the majority leader would no longer need broad support to advance a bill to the floor .

Similarly , debate could be trimmed by banning filibusters on the three steps required to send a bill to conference with the House . Conference committees have gone the way of the dodo bird because minorities have been willing to filibuster the steps required to send bills to conference .

Banning such filibusters would encourage the use of conference committees and restore the involvement of rank-and-file senators in the process of negotiating bicameral agreements . Senators would still retain the right to filibuster agreements that emerged from conference .

Ratchet down the number of votes required to invoke cloture

The first cloture vote would require 60 votes , as is required under Senate rules .

If that failed , the next vote would require 57 votes , then 54 votes , and so on , until the Senate reached a simple majority vote for cloture . To guarantee the minority adequate time to debate and amend bills , I would tie the number of days of advance notice of a coming cloture vote to the number of votes required for cloture . The fewer the votes required , the longer the advance notice . Coupling new cloture thresholds and notice requirements would allow the Senate to reach votes by simple majority while still protecting the minority 's parliamentary rights .

Senate should experiment with new modes of advice and consent for nominations

The confirmation process is a mess , with nominees often waiting months for hearings and confirmation votes .

The Senate should consider new `` fast-track '' confirmation rules . For executive branch appointees , the fast track might fix the length of Senate consideration , guaranteeing a confirmation vote within , say , three months . For judicial nominations , fast-track consideration might be given to candidates recommended by bipartisan commissions in their home states .

Zelizer : Gridlock in Congress ? Blame the GOP

If the White House nominates a candidate approved by such a commission , the Senate would fast-track the nominee to a confirmation vote . Fast-tracks protect the minority 's right to scrutinize presidential appointees , but ensure that nominees are guaranteed confirmation votes within a reasonable period of time .

Such reforms would restore some semblance of balance to the Senate . For that reason , the minority party is likely to oppose them . Even members of the majority might balk at trimming their procedural rights .

That is the unfortunate history of Senate reform : Senators rarely want to give up their parliamentary advantages . Because changes to Senate rules can be filibustered , efforts to reform the Senate typically crash and burn . Under some conditions , majorities can avoid filibusters of their reform proposals by using what senators term the `` constitutional option . ''

But as this week 's outrage on the Senate floor suggests , the process of an overhaul can be as explosive as the actual reform . There 's no easy path .

The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Sarah Binder .

@highlight

Sarah Binder : Minority has always exploited filibuster rules to hang up rival proposals

@highlight

Reid 's plans to reform procedures have faced tough opposition , she says

@highlight

Binder : Senate should set limits on filibuster rules that are fair to each party

@highlight

Binder : Confirmation process is glacial and contentious and needs `` fast-track '' option